Next Article in Journal
Approximate Solutions of the Boussinesq Equation for Horizontal Unconfined Aquifers During Pure Drainage Phase
Previous Article in Journal
Variability of Dry Days and Sequences of Dry Days in the Polish Carpathians in the Period 1986–2020
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 16
Issue 20
10.3390/w16202983
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Governance Conditions for a Successful Restoration of Riverine Ecosystems, Lessons from the Rhine River Basin

by
Twan Fenten
1 and
Carel Dieperink
1,2,*
1
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, 80115, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands
2
Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Droevendaalsesteeg 110, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2024, 16(20), 2983; https://doi.org/10.3390/w16202983
Submission received: 17 September 2024 / Revised: 11 October 2024 / Accepted: 15 October 2024 / Published: 19 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Water Resources Management, Policy and Governance)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Over the years, human impacts have resulted in great losses in riverine biodiversity. Ecosystem restoration could contribute to reversing this trend. Ecosystem restoration, however, involves many actors and perspectives and is, therefore, a complex governance challenge. So far, this governance challenge has been understudied, and it is not clear which governance conditions may contribute to a successful restoration of riverine ecosystems. This paper addresses this knowledge gap by developing an assessment framework that is applied in a critical case study. We first reviewed scientific papers and compiled governance conditions found in an assessment framework. The framework is tested and refined by conducting a case study on the ecosystem restoration process coordinated by the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine. This process aims to bring back the Atlantic salmon and other species in the basin. Our analysis revealed that despite efforts to reintroduce Atlantic salmon, a self-sustaining population is not present in the basin. Moreover, the governance structure in the basin only meets 13 out of 23 governance conditions. Challenges identified include slow decision-making, ambiguity in responsibilities, and limited financial incentives. Based on our case study, we have refined the framework to tailor it more for future research and policy development.

1. Riverine Ecosystem Restoration as a Governance Challenge

Globally, various countries have acknowledged the benefits of riverine ecosystem restoration efforts. From 2015 to 2022, a total of 85 countries actively participated in activities under the United Nations Water Convention [1]. Although the process of ecosystem restoration is demonstrably beneficial to halt global warming and biodiversity loss, it inevitably comes with large challenges for policy-makers [2].
In order to be successful, restoration projects require a sizeable geographical area to be fully in line with an ecological vision. As rivers can flow through the territories of multiple riparian states, riverine ecosystem restoration requires sound international collaboration to coordinate unidirectional restoration efforts. The implementation of the ecosystem restoration efforts needs to be integrated with activities of interplaying communities that actively impact the same ecosystem [3]. This often means that actors need to adapt their activities, habits, or livelihoods. Through governance, this complex societal context must be navigated. Consequently, the success of ecological restoration is not only dependent on ecological factors but also on the presence of certain governance conditions that facilitate effective restoration processes. Governance conditions are defined as elements or activities that are required for a governance approach to be successful [4].
Ecosystem restoration has been the focus of a number of studies, approached from various perspectives to explore its benefits, diverse restoration methodologies, cost evaluation, and financing mechanisms, alongside research on ecological processes and their importance [5,6,7,8]. Compared with terrestrial ecosystem restoration, restoring riverine ecosystems has only recently received more scientific attention despite its ecological and societal significance [9]. Moreover, the exploration of riverine ecosystem restoration through a governance lens is even more sparse, as only a few examples of descriptive studies were found attempting to map out existing governance or management frameworks of complex ecological restoration projects [10,11,12]. The existing literature on the subject often confines itself to specific case studies that examine management approaches without providing a comprehensive and replicable framework for follow-up research or similar case studies. This paper addresses this gap in knowledge and aims to obtain a better understanding of the governance conditions needed for a successful restoration of riverine ecosystems. In order to meet our aim, we first conceptualize successful ecosystem restoration and the governance conditions that contribute to achieving this. A review of the literature will result in an assessment framework. In Section 3, a justification is given for the Rhine river ecosystem restoration process as a critical case study. We also clarify our methods for data collection and analysis. In Section 4, we first clarify to what extent the Rhine ecosystem restoration process can be considered successful, to be followed by an assessment of the presence of governance conditions in the process of the restoration of the Rhine river ecosystem. In Section 5, we reflect on our findings and refine our assessment framework. We conclude this paper with some recommendations for future research and policy making.

2. Conceptualising Governance Conditions for Successful Riverine Ecosystem Restoration

Before discussing the governance conditions for successful ecosystem restoration, we first have to clarify how successful ecosystem restoration can be conceptualized. Following Lovat [13], we define ecosystem restoration as: “(…) the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed to reflect its intrinsic values and to provide goods and services that people value.” Carignan & Villard [14] distinguish two different types of management approaches to ecosystem restoration: coarse-filter and fine-filter ecosystem management. Whereas coarse-filter ecosystem management focusses on the protection of entire habitats to ensure vitality, fine-filter ecosystem management takes one or multiple indicator species, species whose wellbeing functions as a reflection of the quality of an entire ecosystem and the status of restoration efforts. As the needs of indicator species can be expressed in proxies of ecosystem quality parameters, conservation and restoration efforts are provided with a clear goal to work towards [15]. Due to its ability to reduce the complexities of ecosystem needs, fine-filter ecosystem management is frequently chosen as an approach to manage ecosystem conservation and restoration [14,15]. For each approach, the definition of success, however, logically differs, as different benchmarks can be used to monitor restoration progress (e.g., population size versus ecosystem parameter values). For ecosystem restoration in general, one might strive for the attainment of a set goal, which, fed back to the different approaches, might be a certain amount of population growth or the preservation of vital elements. To measure progress, one might adopt a historical ecology approach and compare the current state of an ecosystem to its past state, looking at indicators such as species composition, habitat structure, and ecosystem function [16]. Alternatively, one could use a reference ecosystem approach, comparing the restored ecosystem to a similar, ‘undisturbed’ ecosystem to assess the level of recovery achieved and still required [17].
Whether ecosystem restoration will be successful depends on the presence of certain conditions. In this paper, we focus on governance conditions. In order to find such governance conditions, we have conducted a review of relevant journal papers. Scopus, WorldCat, and Google Scholar were searched using combinations of search terms such as ecosystem, river basin, fluvial, riverine, restoration, governance (conditions), management, and ecology. As a first step, the abstract, results and conclusion sections of the bulk of papers were assessed on their relevance to the topic of both governance and ecosystem restoration. From the selection of relevant papers, ten stood out since they contained a systematic presentation of governance conditions for ecosystem restoration in the form of a list or table. These ten papers were conclusively assessed, and the governance conditions were identified. The governance conditions found were inductively coded and categorized under nine dimensions, overarching topics, or governance attributes, as specified in Table 1.

3. Materials and Methods

The conditions mentioned in Table 1 are very general. In order to test their practical relevance and refine them, we have conducted a critical case study on ecosystem restoration governance in the Rhine. The governance of the restoration of the Rhine river ecosystem perfectly lends itself to a critical case study. In the Rhine basin, the riparian states have cooperated since the early 1950s, first on the improvement of water quality and since 1986 on the restoration of the riverine ecosystem [28,29,30,31]. A governance structure is set up in which the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR) plays a pivotal role. Cooperation is based on the Convention on the Protection of the Rhine [32]. The ICPR has annual plenary meetings in which delegates from the Rhine basin states (Switzerland, Germany, France, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, and the European Community) discuss policies. These meetings are prepared in working groups with the support of an international secretariat located in Koblenz, Germany. Several organizations have observer status in the ICPR. Observers of the ICPR include states, intergovernmental organizations or non-governmental organizations that are related to or interested in the work of the ICPR [33]. As an observer, they are allowed to participate in the ICPR meetings, but they have no voting rights. Occasionally, meetings are organized on the ministerial level. In scientific papers, this is exemplified as a good practice [34,35,36].
Different sources have been used in the analysis of the governance of ecosystem recovery in the Rhine basin. Data from ICPR policy documents, the scientific literature, and expert interviews were triangulated. The analysis of policy documents and scientific papers resulted in a first specification of the governance dimensions and conditions and was followed up by expert interviews to reveal more in-depth insights. The policy documents selected for the analysis were drafted by the ICPR. The selected reports [37,38,39,40] give an overview of the vision and activities of ICPR during the last decades with regard to ecosystem restoration. The scientific literature on the ecosystem restoration process of the Rhine was assessed to retrieve additional insights into the governance process of the Rhine ecosystem restoration. Articles on the governance of the ecosystem restoration process of the Rhine were collected in Scopus, WorldCat, and Google Scholar using (combinations of) the following search terms: Rhine, river basin, governance (structure), (Atlantic) salmon, and management (structure). The combination of these search terms yielded an extensive number of scientific articles, from which we selected the ones with in-depth descriptions of governance aspects of the Rhine ecosystem restoration process. The papers by Wieriks & Schulte-Wülwer-Leidig, Myint, Mostert, Chase, Da Silveira & Richards, Schiff and Shi et al. were chosen and analyzed [35,41,42,43,44,45,46].
Seven semi-structured interviews were conducted with actors involved with restoration efforts of the Rhine ecosystem. The interviewees were found using the contact information on the website of the ICPR (www.iksr.org). On this website, a list is presented of all authorities or organizations that are either a member or observers of the ICPR. Table 2 shows the affiliations of the interviewees that consented to join this study. The names of the interviewees were anonymized, ensuring that the interviewees felt at ease to answer the questions asked freely.
Semi-structured interviews were used for two reasons. First, to collect information on topics that were not (fully) addressed in the documents and journal papers, and next, to collect additional insights on possible governance conditions of importance to the Rhine ecosystem restoration that came to light during the assessment of the documents and journal papers. The interviewees were also asked to give their opinions on the importance of governance conditions in fostering successful riverine ecosystem restoration. The interviews with Interviewees 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were conducted in Dutch. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The transcripts, as well as the policy documents and journal papers, were coded using Nvivo v. 14 software.
In Section 4, we score the presence of the governance conditions mentioned in Table 1 using a traffic light scheme. The colour red indicates that a governance condition is absent from the current governance structure, orange indicates that a governance condition is partially present, and green indicates that a particular governance condition is fully met.

4. Results

4.1. The Successes of the Rhine Basin Restoration Process

Ecological recovery was put on the agenda of the ICPR after the 1986 Sandoz blaze [31]. This accident showed the vulnerability of the Rhine ecosystem and paved the way to set standards on the Rhine basin level for ecological recovery. The return of the salmon was set as the overall ambition of the riparian states, who collaboratively adopted this fine-filter ecosystem restoration strategy to restore the Rhine ecosystem. The salmon is a migratory species that used to be indigenous to the Rhine catchment. The fish migrates from the sea to the upstream spawning grounds. The number of salmon in the Rhine basin has dropped over the course of time [47,48]. It is, however, challenging to pinpoint the precise beginning of the global Atlantic salmon population drop in the Rhine River alone. While some sources identify 1970 as the starting point [49,50], other sources suggest the 1980s [51,52], the early 1990s [53], or even the 18th century [54]. Several factors have contributed to the decline of the salmon population in the Rhine. Both freshwater and high-seas fisheries are held responsible for the decline in the Atlantic salmon population and are often cited as one of the main causes for the steep population decline in the second half of the 20th century [49,50,51,52,54]. Additionally, a significant hindrance to salmon populations is the installation of (hydroelectric) dams and power stations in river basins, which destroy juvenile habitats and impede the Atlantic salmon’s upstream movement [51,55]. Hydroelectric dam turbines also contribute to increased salmon mortality since the fish’s relentless attempts to pass are lethal [51]. Another cause of the decline in the Atlantic salmon population is watershed pollution caused by human activities such as industries and agriculture [56]. Last, climate change significantly threatens Atlantic salmon by warming and acidifying their aquatic habitats, disrupting river flow patterns, and altering the food chain [49,50,51,53,55].
The current status of the restoration of the Rhine ecosystem and the progress made on fostering the return of the Atlantic salmon to the waters of the Rhine can be derived from the latest reports of the ICPR. Table 3 gives an overview of the realization of ecological recovery goals set by the ICPR in 2001 related to fostering the return of the Atlantic salmon [57]. The objectives were each assessed on the progress made, as reported in 2020 [39]. The table shows that significant progress has been made, although strictly speaking, only the goals related to the connection of oxbow lakes or lateral water bodies to the dynamics of the Rhine and a reduction in metal concentrations have been fully realized. As the stated objectives of ecosystem restoration by the ICPR are not yet achieved, this demonstrates the room for improvement of the (governance of) ecosystem restoration and possibly indicates the absence of specific governance conditions to facilitate the ecosystem restoration process.

4.2. The Presence of the Governance Conditions in the Rhine Basin

Table 4 gives an overview of the presence of the governance conditions in the Rhine basin. The table shows a varying presence of governance conditions, as indicated by the color grading using a traffic light assessment scheme. The colour red indicates that a governance condition is absent from the current governance structure, orange indicates that a governance condition is partially present, and green indicates that a particular governance condition is fully met.

4.2.1. Legislation

Only one of the governance conditions dealing with legislation is fully met. Ecosystem restoration is protected by and embedded in institutional arrangements and legislation. By ratifying the Convention of Bern in 1963, the riparian states gave the ICPR the formal legal mandate to draft policy recommendations. Ever since, the organization exerted this transformative power by drafting conventions dealing with the abatement of chemical and chloride pollution, establishing the Rhine Action Program (RAP), broadening its scope with Flood Action Plans, and guiding and further elaborating its restoration progress with the Rhine 2020 and Rhine 2040 programs [35,39,40,42,43,44,45]. Ecosystem restoration has been on the agenda of the ICPR since the late 1980s [35,45]. Moreover, the sustainable development of the Rhine ecosystem is the first objective of the legally binding Rhine Convention [58]. A legal basis can also be found in the EU Water Framework Directive and other EU Directives [35,37,38,39,40]. However, the power of the ICPR is limited. Decisions have to be made unanimously (although abstention is allowed), so the transformation of existing institutional restoration arrangements or institutionalization of new restoration arrangements can only be performed step by step [58]. Interviewees 6 and 7 state that, in the end, economic interests dominate over ecological interests, restraining the institutionalization of ecosystem restoration to solely limit damage instead of ‘true’ conservation and restoration. The ICPR programs have a soft law character, and apart from this, the ICPR has no legal enforcement mandate [35,43]. Its power is limited to the public naming and shaming of flaws in the enforcement of ecological recovery measures [42]. However, the EU Water Framework Directive, which sets deadlines for the realization of a good water ecology in the EU member states, is legally binding and can be enforced by the European Court of Justice [35,43]. Ongoing collaboration between the ICPR and EU institutions will be crucial to ensure coherence and alignment in environmental policy implementation.

4.2.2. Governance Structure

Three of the five conditions dealing with the governance structure are fully met. Ecosystem restoration management in the Rhine basin takes place at a cross-border, fluvial scale to ensure synergy between individual restoration measures [37,39,40,41,42,44]. The international collaboration through the ICPR is a textbook example of integrated river management on a catchment area scale, with a strong focus on information sharing [40,42]. In addition to ongoing efforts to harmonize national efforts on an international, cross-border scale, there is a stated purpose and desire to further develop intra-regional collaboration on ecological recovery in the coming decades [39,40]. This includes a broadening of stakeholder participation. Several stakeholders, however, already participate in the work of the ICPR. The number of stakeholders having an observer status has grown over the years, whereas currently, 3 states, 8 IGOs, and 20 NGOs have observer status [33]. Amongst the observers are international organizations and commissions, drinking water companies, shipping organizations, angling clubs, environmental NGOs, and more.
The ICPR oversees the coordination of restoration efforts at the river catchment scale, setting international goals and objectives [37,39,40,41,42,44]. However, the responsibility for implementing ecosystem restoration measures lies with the national governments, where each nation tailors restoration measures to address specific issues within its borders [38,39,42]. The ICPR serves as a control system, ensuring that—as said before by naming and shaming—the riparian states hold each other responsible for implementing restoration measures (Interviewees 1 and 2) [42]. Concerns are, however, raised about delays due to ambiguities in responsibilities and costs (Interviewees 3 and 5). For example, Interviewees 5, 6, and 7 state that in the Netherlands, there is confusion over which authority is responsible for nature restoration along the Rhine (Interviewees 5, 6, and 7).
Overall, the organizational structure of the ICPR reflects the multi-dimensionality of ecosystem restoration. Working groups consist of experts with different scientific backgrounds and focus on specific aspects of basin restoration (Interviewee 6) [43,44]. However, as said, the political capacity of the ICPR is lacking when transferring policy goals and objectives to the national political playfields. As a result of the compartmentalization of policy and division of tasks among national ministries, member states are unable to fully adopt the insights gained from the multidisciplinary information exchange on the level of the ICPR (Interviewees 1, 3, and 4). The ICPR could improve its political strength to navigate the national political playfields of riparian states to ensure a better political fit for the working group’s reports on ecological recovery and the resulting policy recommendations. A possible first step could be to include more political scientists to broaden the multidisciplinary scope of the ICPR.
The conflict management strategy of the ICPR is clearly outlined in the Convention on the Protection of the Rhine [58]. It prioritizes negotiation and consensus-building among the riparian states and the EU [35,41,43,45,46]. The ICPR has no sanctioning power [46]. If a conflict between riparian states persists, arbitration by the International Court of Justice is an option, but in practice, this has occurred only once in a dispute between the Netherlands and France about the financing of measures to reduce waste salt discharges by the potassium mines in the Alsace [58,59].

4.2.3. Financing

The conditions concerning the financing of ecosystem recovery are only present limitedly. The financial mechanisms on which the ICPR is based primarily support the organization’s administrative functions (Interviewee 6). Allocation of finances towards actual restoration efforts is limited (Interviewees 1, 2, 3, and 7). The responsibility for financing ecosystem restoration lies predominantly with the riparian states (Interviewees 1, 3, and 7). direct financial incentives on an international level are lacking, but restoration projects may indirectly receive subsidies from the EU, for example, through the INTERREG subsidy scheme [45]. Subsidies also exist on the national level, but there is no evidence that the riparian states promote ecosystem restoration with structural financial incentives. Interviewees 5 and 7 advocate for more subsidies to stimulate and reward restoration efforts.
In order to stimulate wider participation in ecosystem restoration, the economic benefits of ecological restoration of the Rhine could be emphasized more. So far, ethical values have been dominant in motivating the restoration of the Rhine basin, although interviewees revealed that communicating these moral beliefs is challenging (Interviewees 2, 3, 4, and 7) [40]. Economic benefits mentioned by the interviewees include improved water quality and a reduction in water purification costs, public health benefits, more private sector involvement, an increased economic value of natural environments, and opportunities for tourism (Interviewees 1, 4, 6, and 7). Flood protection could also benefit from ecological restoration measures [40]. These benefits, however, are often indirect and long-term, with high upfront costs (Interviewees 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7). These benefits could be better stressed by including more societal cost-benefit analyses in the decision-making processes (Interviewee 6). This could pave the way for taking innovative measures that benefit both economic sectors and the ecology.
As said above, the financing of ecosystem restoration of the Rhine River largely falls on the shoulders of individual riparian states, as no international funding structures are provided by the ICPR (Interviewees 4 and 6) [43,46,58]. The ICPR facilitates discussions on finances during its annual meetings, aiming to encourage equitable distribution of responsibilities and costs among member countries (Interviewees 5 and 6) [37,40,41,42,43,44]. However, challenges remain at the national level, as a lack of clarity about responsibilities hinders progress, and there is an absence of clear implementation plans and financial accountability frameworks (Interviewees 5, 6, and 7) [39].

4.2.4. Information

Two out of three information-related conditions are present. There is a clear and demarcated role for science in the current governance of ecosystem restoration by the ICPR, predominantly focusing on drafting a scientific foundation for the ICPR. The governance structure of the ICPR consists of various working groups or scientific expert groups on varying topics relevant to the restoration of the Rhine ecosystem (Interviewee 6) [44]. These groups are made up of national scientific experts from all riparian states and are each tasked with conducting research, adopting the results and thus providing input to the strategy group to draft policy recommendations. The strategy group consists of high-ranked civil servants from the riparian states and is ranked above the working and expert groups in the ICPR hierarchy (Interviewees 1, 3, and 6) [43]. The strategy group tends to nuance scientific recommendations in order to ensure a better political fit (Interviewee 3; Interviewee 5). By doing so, the ICPR navigates the individual national measures and the newfound scientific recommendations in search of common ground for the refinement or expansion of restoration measures. The riparian states then discuss the ICPR recommendations until a new international agreement is reached to develop further the Rhine ecosystem restoration strategy [42,43,46]. Scientific insights are used in plan development, progress monitoring, the adjustment or expansion of restoration measures, and the drafting of policy recommendations (Interviewees 1 and 5) [39,42,43]. However, criticisms have been raised regarding the efficiency of the decision-making process of ICPR, referring to the time-consuming nature of political discussions and negotiation [46]. Interviewee 5 also expresses concerns about the nuanced influences of the strategy group, which dilutes scientific recommendations in favor of finding political compromises easier.
A clear tradeoff between different ecosystem restoration measures is not made on the ICPR level. The ICPR can only give policy recommendations, whereas the riparian states are themselves responsible for choosing and implementing restoration measures between their borders [42,43,46]. The Rhine 2040 report, which contains the ICPR restoration measure selection strategy, however, emphasizes the importance of tailored ecosystem restoration measures supported by scientific research and data analysis to assess effectiveness and inform decision-making [40].
The ICPR integrates scientific research extensively, both independently and in collaboration with research institutes, NGOs, and observers (Interviewees 1, 5, 6, and 7) [39,42,43]. This collaborative effort ensures that knowledge gaps and uncertainties regarding the Rhine ecosystem are addressed comprehensively [41]. Monitoring reports and data analysis serve as crucial tools in evaluating the current state of the Rhine’s ecosystem parameters and identifying areas requiring improvement (Interviewee 1). Scientific insights guide the selection of measures by focusing on substances with significant ecological impacts and establishing target values for ecological system health (Interviewees 1, 3, and 6) [43]. Preferably, synergistic measures are chosen that simultaneously enhance ecosystem quality and provide flood protection [40]. Ongoing monitoring and research initiatives are focused on understanding and mitigating the impacts of climate change, identifying pollutants, and assessing the effects of (micro)plastics on ecosystem health [39,40].

4.2.5. Stakeholder Support

Both conditions dealing with stakeholder support are fully met. The ecosystem restoration project led by the ICPR has found political support in the basin and the European Commission. High-level civil servants from the basin states are involved (especially in the plenary meetings), and occasionally, the ministers of the riparian states meet each other and show their commitment to the efforts to restore the Rhine ecosystem. On the national level several rules have been set. As progress on ecosystem restoration is entirely dependent on the restoration measures implemented by individual riparian states, each enactment of new national legislation within member states further strengthens the mandate of the ICPR [38,39]. Throughout the decades, new national legislations have been implemented to reduce water pollution and to restore the ecosystem of the Rhine [38,39,44]. The high-level government officials that participate in the ICPR thus play a vital role in implementing and enforcing these new legislations and measures after an international agreement is reached under the ICPR collaboration [44]. Their involvement shows the deep commitment of the riparian states, ensuring that national policies are effectively aligned with the goals of the commission. In the case of political brokering, Interviewees 4, 5, 6, and 7 frequently mention their lobby function as important in advocating for environmental policy reforms based on the scientific findings retrieved by their organization. As mentioned by Interviewees 4, 5, 6, and 7, lobbying is directed both at the ICPR and at national governments, as they are responsible for the actual implementation of restoration measures. Furthermore, political pressure can be exerted through the ICPR from one national government to another in case of disputes or negligence [42,43].
The ICPR actively promotes participation and cooperates with stakeholders and actors in the Rhine catchment area, varying from NGOs to private cooperations [35,39,41,45]. This process was fairly limited until the drafting of the RAP in 1987, for which local stakeholders, industries, NGOs, and non-state actors were invited to participate (Interviewee 2) [38,41,42]. Afterward, various stakeholders were invited to join the ICPR Working Groups (Interviewee 2) [38,42]. It was only in 1996 that the ICPR truly started to open up for stakeholder participation by inviting NGOs to attend the meetings of the ICPR [43,44,45]. The participation activities to actively include more NGOs amongst other stakeholders in the decision-making process about restoration measures were formalized under the Convention on the Protection of the Rhine in 1999 [43,44,58]. The contemporary ICPR frequently organizes meetings, workshops, and discussion groups with active users and stakeholders of the Rhine to encourage their participation and to draft shared visions and objectives for the restoration of the Rhine ecosystem (Interviewee 2) [39,43,44]. Stakeholders can apply for observer status at the ICPR [44]. When looking at the present and future of the ICPR, the Rhine 2040 report mentions the plans and objectives with regard to the capacity-building process surrounding ecosystem restoration. The report mentions that “cooperation with recognized observers on the Rhine will be continued and further developed if necessary. Contact and cooperation with other stakeholders will be improved.” [40] (p. 25).

4.2.6. Leadership

The three leadership-related conditions are only partly present. Currently, no strong leadership is mentioned in the assessed sources. The presence of individual leadership within the ecosystem restoration process in the past was, however, mentioned by individual sources and interviewees. Mostert [43] highlights the importance of the role of former Dutch Minister for Water Management, Neelie Smit-Kroes, in transforming the political landscape of the ICPR towards a more flexible collaboration based on individual national efforts. Interviewee 4 underlines the contribution of Jan Pronk, former Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, in allocating government funds for nature restoration in the Netherlands. Interviewee 1 credits Cora van Nieuwenhuizen, former Minister of Water Management of the Netherlands, for mediating conflicts preceding the Rhine Ministerial Conference in 2020, attributing part of the conference’s success to her efforts. Interviewee 6 expresses appreciation for a former president of the ICPR, without mentioning this individual by name, in building consensus surrounding a complex fish passage system at a large French hydropower project. However, these individuals are only once mentioned by individual interviewees. In addition, Interviewees 2 and 7 state that the role of strong individuals in the ICPR governance is limited. According to Interviewee 2, the general structure of the ICPR is of much more importance.
The ICPR plays an important role in coordinating the ecosystem restoration of the Rhine catchment area by drafting shared visions and ecosystem restoration objectives (Interviewees 1 and 6) [39,44,46]. The ICPR acts as a platform to facilitate discussions on restoration goals among experts (in the ICPR Working Groups) and to gain political consensus on future steps and international agreements (in the strategy group and during the Ministerial Conferences) (Interviewee 1) [39,46]. The encompassing vision for the future of the Rhine ecosystem is specified in the ICPR action programs, which entail all goals and deadlines for the restoration efforts [37,38,39,40]. The goals set by the ICPR are of a general character in order to facilitate the reaching of compromises and eventually to allow for further development of tailor-made contextual policies and measures by individual riparian states (Interviewees 1 and 4) [44]. To support the collaboration, the ICPR also urges the riparian states to monitor progress and to share new insights, enhancing transparency and accountability across the basin (Interviewees 4 and 7) [41].
Although significant progress has been made in the last decades with regard to the restoration of the Rhine ecosystem, this cannot be said for all targets set by the ICPR, as shown in Table 3. While the ICPR plays a vital role in setting goals and monitoring progress towards ecosystem restoration along the Rhine, its accountability mechanisms may require strengthening to ensure timely implementation of restoration measures by riparian states and partaking stakeholders. Pressure from stakeholders, including NGOs and the media, plays a significant role in holding actors accountable for their commitments (Interviewees 1, 3, and 4). When countries fail to fulfill their obligations, NGOs or other ICPR observers often publicize these shortcomings, highlighting the trailing of riparian states in ecosystem restoration (Interviewee 2) [42,45]. However, the absence of explicit enforcement measures at the ICPR level means that accountability relies largely on reputational risk and political pressure (Interviewees 1, 2, and 6) [35,43]. The role of the ICPR in monitoring progress strengthens accountability as it requires member states to report annually on their implementation efforts [41,44]. These reports are also made public, fostering transparency and encouraging public participation in the decision-making process (Interviewee 2) [42]. Additionally, the ICPR serves as a referee, intervening when member states fail to produce reports or make sufficient progress [42]. Nevertheless, various indications are given by interviewees that the effectiveness of the accountability mechanisms of the ICPR for the timely implementation of the restoration measures is lower than desired. Achieving timely implementation of ecosystem restoration measures remains contingent on the goodwill and voluntary cooperation of member states (Interviewees 3 and 4). Decision-making is based on consensus, and as a result, all riparian states must agree on the drafted compromises (Interviewee 4) [46]. Interviewee 7 further adds that the Rhine restoration process may conflict with economic interests in the basin.
As the enforcement mechanisms of the ICPR lack teeth, some sources reveal that they hope that, in case of insufficient implementation of European Directives, the European Court of Justice will impose fines on riparian states (Interviewee 3) [35,45].

4.2.7. Discourse

The ICPR recognizes the need for shared visions and objectives among all riparian states and stakeholders in the Rhine catchment area. As an organization, it frequently organizes workshops, discussion groups, conferences, and negotiation forums that provide space for dialogue, information exchange, and negotiation, with as aim of better understanding the interests and concerns of all involved actors in the Rhine ecosystem restoration process [35,39,41,45]. These participatory practices act as a form of capacity building to ultimately obtain more widely supported plan-making and execution [39,44]. The IPCR does not solely focus on the protection and improvement of the Rhine ecosystem but takes into account the needs of stakeholders for the continuous development of the Rhine catchment area and its economy [42,46]. Workshops conducted by the ICPR have emphasized the necessity of developing common goals and projects that involve local stakeholders [46]. Moreover, the involvement of NGOs, intergovernmental organizations, and states as observers in ICPR activities underscores a commitment to participation and transparency [39]. Observers play a vital role in monitoring ICPR initiatives, providing critical feedback, and sharing information with the public [39,41,42]. The Rhine 2040 report states a future commitment to understanding and discussing different stakeholder perspectives and needs in ‘regular rounds of talks’ [40]. A focus point of communication of the ICPR is to express the value of ecosystem services, as these are fragile when outweighed by economic interest [40]. Additionally, the report mentions the need to coordinate water usage to ensure an alignment of user interest with the need for a healthier Rhine ecosystem in the future [40].

4.2.8. Adaptation

Rhine governance clearly reflects both adaptation-related conditions. The Rhine ecosystem restoration project has clear long-term goals, which are flexible to anticipate future uncertainties. The ICPR incorporates long-term planning in its governance of the Rhine ecosystem restoration process by drafting long-term action programs to give direction to international coordination and cooperation on a catchment area scale [44]. These action programs set concrete targets for the improvement of ecosystem parameters to foster the sustainable improvement of the Rhine ecosystem, thus underlining a forward-looking approach (Interviewee 4) [37,38,40]. The first of these action programs was the 1987 Rhine Action Program, followed up by Rhine 2020 and Rhine 2040 reports, respectively setting targets for approximately 15 to 20 years in the future [37,38,40]. An underlying long-term guideline for the Rhine restoration process since 1987 is the objective to achieve the return of an Atlantic salmon population in the Rhine and its tributaries [38,41,42]. Throughout the decades, this objective has evolved to now focus on establishing a self-sustaining population [40]. The Rhine 2020 and Rhine 2040 reports show similarities in the main topics that are addressed to guide restoration efforts, as the newer report builds upon the progress made by riparian states [40]. Additionally, the ICPR anticipates the possible adjustment of the Rhine 2040 program in light of new insights, regulations, and unforeseen future challenges, such as climate change. Since the drafting of Rhine 2020, the ICPR has worked on developing climate change adaptation strategies by 2025, analyzing the possible impact of different discharge scenarios on the Rhine ecosystem [37,39]. Climate change adaptation and anticipation strategies include the formulation of objectives with regard to reducing extreme flood levels and in addition, reducing flood damage risk [37,39,40].
The ICPR continually improves its restoration policies and measures by evaluating the outcomes of existing policies and measures. One of the core tasks of the ICPR is the evaluation of the effectiveness of implemented restoration measures [35,58]. At the Rhine Ministerial Conferences, the completed and ongoing restoration measures and the overall progress of Rhine ecosystem restoration are discussed and evaluated, after which new restoration objectives are formulated [31]. The progress of restoration is elucidated in monitoring reports, based on which the IPCR gives recommendations to the riparian states further to improve their restoration efforts (Interviewee 1). Similar information on restoration progress, combined with monitoring data, can be found in the assessed ICPR reports. ‘Rhine & Salmon 2020’ mentions the impact of the opening of the Haringvliet sluices in the Netherlands and discusses the possibility of further opening the sluices. [37]. In ‘Assessment Rhine 2020’, various restoration measures related to improving the Rhine passability and retention capacity and reducing phosphorus concentrations and flood risk are mentioned to have been partially successful, after which revised additional measures are mentioned to achieve the set goals [39]. In order to increase the capacity of the ICPR to evaluate the impact of its own measures more precisely, the objective is also stated to improve further its own monitoring and evaluation systems [39]. ‘Rhine 2040’ gives a strong indication that ‘organizational adaptive management’ will be actively pursued in the future by the ICPR to evaluate its own plans and implementation of Rhine ecosystem restoration measures as in the report, restoration measures are additionally repeatedly mentioned to be ‘reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted’ [40].

4.2.9. Innovation

The ICPR has an organizational culture open for innovation, where experimentation policies and measures are implemented to test new ideas. The ICPR describes its own organizational culture in the reports ‘Assessment Rhine 2020’ and ‘Rhine 2040’ [39,40]. The focus on innovation in the Rhine ecosystem restoration process is most often mentioned in relation to fish ascent and descent structures at weirs and hydroengineering projects in order to reduce fish mortality and improve the passability of the Rhine for migratory (fish) species, such as the Atlantic salmon [39,40]. Chase [44] also mentions that the Rhine 2020 report strongly advocated the use of innovative pilot projects to restore habitat in various locations, using these experiments as a means to gather and share newly obtained knowledge. In addition to improving the passability, ‘Rhine 2040’ also re-includes the role of pilot projects to gain new insights into the ecosystem restoration process while again mentioning the role of the ICPR as a platform for information exchange and promoting cross-border projects in light of the available EU subsidies through the INTERREG subsidy scheme [45]. Last, the ICPR mentions innovation with regard to their monitoring methods and data collection on the progress of ecosystem restoration in the Rhine. New monitoring methods, such as the inclusion of remote sensing data and the analysis of environmental DNA, are mentioned to be adopted and evaluated to gain a better understanding of the Rhine ecosystem and the effect of restoration measures [40].

4.3. Additional Governance Conditions

From the assessed policy documents and scientific articles, four additional governance conditions were retrieved, representing topics that were frequently mentioned to play a role in the facilitation of the ecosystem restoration process of the Rhine. The importance of centralized monitoring, flexibility, a transformative organizational structure, and the use of a fine filter ecosystem restoration strategy was discussed with our interviewees.
First, interviewees were asked about their perception of the importance of the centrally coordinated monitoring role of the ICPR. In essence, the interviewees recognize the importance of the role of centrally coordinated monitoring by the ICPR in assessing and addressing ecosystem restoration challenges in the Rhine basin. They underline the value of standardized monitoring techniques and the assessment reports for the whole river basin in gaining an understanding of the Rhine ecosystem, the impact of their restoration measures, and in facilitating political discussions (Interviewees 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). By drafting comprehensive reports on various aspects and parameters of the Rhine’s ecosystem health, the commission facilitates an understanding of the entire river basin status and fosters collaboration and knowledge exchange among member states (Interviewees 1 and 4). Interviewees, however, express concerns that monitoring insights do not always result in further restoration action (Interviewees 2 and 5).
Second, interviewees were asked about their perception of the importance of flexibility. Although the ICPR facilitates political discussions and offers scientifically sourced recommendations for restoration policies and measures, the ultimate decision in the implementation of measures lies with the riparian states themselves (Interviewees 1, 2, and 5). This decentralized approach allows countries to tailor solutions and restoration measures according to their specific needs and priorities (Interviewee 6). The interviewees express a consensus that the flexibility granted to individual countries in choosing restoration measures is both a strength and a challenge (Interviewees 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7). They acknowledge the necessity of diversity in restoration approaches among the riparian states, whereas each country has its own vision, preferences, and contextual issues. Therefore, the interviewees emphasize the complexity of balancing flexibility and imposition in restoration efforts. Although flexibility allows for adaptation to the local context, it can come at the expense of timely meeting agreed-upon restoration objectives (Interviewees 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7).
Third, interviewees were asked about their perception of the importance of having an adaptive organizational structure within the ICPR to foster successful ecosystem restoration. While interviewees highlight the value of possible changes in the organizational structure of the ICPR to widen its scope and to adapt to new issues, they also state that they are satisfied with the current organizational structure and its flexibility (Interviewees 1, 2, 3, and 6). Various interviewees also highlight the importance of staying focused on giving a voice to ecological values in political debates, expressing their worries about further development towards a more interdisciplinary organizational structure, partially due to personnel issues within the riparian states, which has an impact on maintaining or expanding the current organizational structure of the ICPR as it takes longer to fulfill vacancies (Interviewees 4, 5 and 6).
Last, the interviewees were asked about the importance of the fine-filter ecosystem restoration strategy adopted by the ICPR to guide the restoration of the Rhine ecosystem. The use of the Atlantic salmon as an indicator species for guiding the restoration of the Rhine ecosystem is praised by various interviewees, who underline the symbolic importance of the salmon to reflect the wellbeing of the Rhine ecosystem and whose demand for passability of the Rhine reflects the need for international collaboration (Interviewees 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7). Additionally, the cultural and economic significance of the salmon within the Rhine catchment area further strengthens its role as a symbol for raising awareness and garnering support for restoration efforts (Interviewees 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7). However, due to challenges in establishing a self-sustaining salmon population, concerns are raised with regard to the overreliance on the emotional appeal of the salmon, which possibly diverts attention from other crucial ecological factors within the Rhine ecosystem (Interviewees 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). Criticism also emerges regarding the suitability of the Atlantic salmon as a sole indicator species, with suggestions to explore alternative strategies or consider multiple indicator species to capture the complexity of the Rhine ecosystem dynamics (Interviewees 3, 5, 6, and 7).

4.4. Perceived Importance of Governance Conditions

The interviewees were also asked to identify the governance conditions they considered to be the most crucial. However, no real pattern could be identified in the perceived importance of governance conditions, as the answers of the interviewees varied widely. There is, however, some overlap in the considered importance of governance conditions. Interviewees 1, 2, and 7 state that ecosystem restoration being embedded in institutional arrangements is one of the more important conditions to facilitate successful ecosystem restoration. These interviewees highlighted the importance of the drafted regulations and rules for the functioning of the ICPR and the international agreements made on the restoration of the Rhine River basin, which enables collaboration, discussion, and negotiation. Additionally, Interviewees 4 and 7 stress the importance of having enforcement power. They refer to European laws and directives, which are legally binding and could result in financial sanctions in case of non-compliance. Last, both Interviewees 2 and 6 underline the importance of having clear financial agreements about the implementation of restoration measures, as a lack of financial clarity slows down political debates and creates national disputes over responsibilities. According to them, a more concrete plan for financing the restoration of the Rhine would greatly benefit the overall process.
Other governance conditions were only mentioned by individual interviewees. Interviewee 1 underlines the importance of having a ‘coordinated shared vision’ as a foundation to guide international collaboration on the restoration of a cross-border river basin. This interviewee also mentions the importance of having a conflict management strategy to resolve possible conflicts that might arise. Interviewee 3 values the coordinating role of the ICPR in progress monitoring and assessing the impact of restoration measures. Last, Interviewee 6 mentions political support, in particular the political will of the Rhine ministers to foster ecosystem restoration as a decisive bottom-line in obtaining success.

5. Discussion

In this section, we first reflect on our case-study findings, followed by policy recommendations and a reflection on the research methodology. Next, based on our findings and application experiences, we will refine our assessment framework. Our analysis has revealed that ecosystem restoration of the Rhine basin has booked progress, although not all ambitions have been realized so far. We also found that several of the success conditions are present in the basin, but it is also clear that room for improvement exists.
Although ecosystem restoration of the Rhine is nested in various international agreements, institutionalization is not seldomly restrained to solely limiting the anthropological damage to the Rhine, instead of formalizing true restoration and conservation agreements to improve the quality of the Rhine ecosystem. Criticism is directed towards the time-consuming procedures of discussion and negotiation within the ICPR and the ambiguity of responsibilities within national governmental organizations due to the attribution of tasks and responsibilities being loosely defined to each riparian state’s national mandate. This is partially caused by the soft-law approach of the ICPR, which attributes its enforcement mechanisms largely to political or public pressure, although there lies potential in the more stringent enforcement measures from European Directives. Financially, the governance of ecosystem restoration of the Rhine also has notable challenges, as there are minimal financial incentives for riparian states to support the funding of restoration measures using their own national budget. Although there are significant economic benefits to the restoration of the Rhine ecosystem, these benefits will be derived in the long-term. Part of these benefits are the avoided costs of potential disasters or the restoration of future damage to the ecosystem, which are indirect, therefore, harder to communicate and thus currently seldom included in political or financial considerations. Additionally, the same mentioned ambiguity within national governmental organizations plays a role in slowing down decision-making with regard to financing ecosystem restoration measures. To coordinate the restoration of the Rhine ecosystem on a fluvial scale, the ICPR drafts policy recommendations for individual riparian states. Although the ICPR puts effort in weighing scientific knowledge from varying disciplines both multi- and interdisciplinary, some remarks are made on the challenges of transferring the multi- and interdisciplinary insights to the more compartmentalized national political playfields. From the perspective of the ICPR, a better political fit of policy recommendations can be sought out, possibly by including experts in political sciences in its expert, working, or strategy groups. Similarly, the role of individual leadership strength is scarcely mentioned in the assessed sources to be of importance to the success of the ICPR; the involvement of individuals with relevant political experience at a national or international level could be of added value in order to raise awareness of the Rhine restoration process and to find better political alignment.
Further steps towards ecological recovery of the Rhine basin could be made by fostering the presence of all governance conditions. This, however, would not be a guarantee for a completely successful ecosystem restoration. This is due to the presence of factors outside the Rhine basin that negatively affect the anadromous Atlantic salmon population, such as overexploitation by high-seas fisheries. Nevertheless, striving to have all governance conditions present can facilitate governance for successful ecosystem restoration within the Rhine basin itself. As a recommendation, this study strongly advocates for maintaining the currently present governance conditions in the governance structure of the restoration of the Rhine. In addition, we explicitly recommend to the riparian states and the ICPR to address the challenges facing ecosystem restoration of the Rhine. It is crucial to formalize binding agreements that go beyond simply limiting anthropological damage, ensuring clear responsibilities for riparian states. Strengthening enforcement mechanisms by incorporating stringent measures from European Directives would encourage adherence to restoration objectives, increasing the likelihood of successful outcomes. To enhance financial motivation, the ICPR should develop funding schemes that promote national investment by highlighting the long-term economic benefits of restoration and the avoided costs of disaster mitigation. Additionally, integrating political science experts and leaders with relevant political experience into the ICPR Working and Strategy Groups could help to tailor recommendations to align with national political systems, improve acceptance and implementation, and raise awareness of the Rhine restoration process. These steps would create a more robust and collaborative governance structure, promoting sustainable restoration of the Rhine ecosystem.
The research method used in this paper involved analyzing policy documents and scientific articles supplemented by seven expert interviews to address gaps in the literature. This approach provided sufficient information to answer the research question; however, a more extensive set of interviews with a broader range of stakeholders involved in the Rhine restoration would have yielded more generalizable insights. In hindsight, conducting surveys could have been a valuable addition, as they would have allowed access to a larger respondent pool and enabled statistical analysis of the findings. Nevertheless, the use of surveys would have limited the depth of the responses by removing the opportunity for follow-up questions, which proved essential in gaining nuanced knowledge from the experts. Additionally, a sidenote can be placed on the relevance of collecting insights from multiple employees from the same organization rather than only interviewing one representative expert. Although each research method has its limitations, future research could benefit from a more varied sampling of organizational representatives to capture a fuller picture of viewpoints.
Our analysis is based on a framework we derived from our literature review. This framework appeared to be useful in assessing governance conditions for successful riverine ecosystem restoration, but we also found some of the conditions mentioned in the framework to overlap. Moreover, our interviewees suggested that one out of the four additional governance conditions derived from the assessed policy documents and papers should be added due to its perceived importance: to have centrally coordinated monitoring. A refinement and simplification of the framework is therefore suggested in Table 5.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, we have explored the governance conditions that enable a successful restoration of riverine ecosystems. To achieve this, we have reviewed literature and policy documents and conducted a critical case study. Enabling and restricting factors for the successful restoration of the Rhine ecosystem were identified by assessing the presence of governance conditions. Based on our analysis, we recommend the ICPR and other policymakers related to the restoration of the Rhine ecosystem maintain the governance conditions that are currently present and focus on improving enforcement and financial agreements and other (partially) absent conditions.
The case study indicated some shortcomings of the analytical framework and brought to light some new governance conditions that had previously not been derived from the scientific literature. The list of conditions found is relevant for future research and policymakers. By applying our revised framework in other (comparative) case studies, more insights could be acquired into the empirical manifestations of the conditions as well as their relative weight and importance. Policymakers are challenged to use the conditions when they initiate restoration initiatives or when they reflect on them. Policymakers who plan to invest in riverine ecosystem restoration could use our list of conditions to structure their dialogues and institutions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.F. and C.D.; methodology, T.F. and C.D.; validation, T.F. and C.D.; formal analysis, T.F.; investigation, T.F.; data curation, T.F.; writing—original draft preparation, T.F. and C.D.; writing—review and editing, C.D.; visualization, T.F.; supervision, C.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available through the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the interviewees participating in this study. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their feedback on an earlier draft of the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. United Nations (UN). The Water Convention: 30 Years of Impact and Achievements on the Ground. 2022. Available online: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/UNECE-TheWaterConvention-30Years-A4-150dpi_WEB2.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2023).
  2. Pettorelli, N.; Barlow, J.; Stephens, P.A.; Durant, S.M.; Connor, B.; Bühne, H.S.T.; Sandom, C.J.; Wentworth, J.; du Toit, J.T. Making rewilding fit for policy. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 1114–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jepson, P.; Schepers, F.; Helmer, W. Governing with nature: A European perspective on putting rewilding principles into practice. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2018, 373, 20170434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wuijts, S.; Friederichs, L.; Hin, J.A.; Schets, F.M.; Van Rijswick, H.F.M.W.; Driessen, P.P.J. Governance conditions to overcome the challenges of realizing safe urban bathing water sites. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2022, 38, 554–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Martin, D.M.; Lyons, J.E. Monitoring the social benefits of ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2018, 26, 1045–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aronson, J.; Goodwin, N.; Orlando, L.; Eisenberg, C.; Cross, A.T. A world of possibilities: Six restoration strategies to support the United Nation’s Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2020, 28, 730–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bodin, B.; Garavaglia, V.; Pingault, N.; Ding, H.; Wilson, S.; Meybeck, A.; Gitz, V.; D’Andrea, S.; Besacier, C. A standard framework for assessing the costs and benefits of restoration: Introducing The Economics of Ecosystem Restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2022, 30, e13515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Prach, K.; Bartha, S.; Joyce, C.B.; Pyšek, P.; Van Diggelen, R.; Wiegleb, G. The role of spontaneous vegetation succession in ecosystem restoration: A perspective. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2001, 4, 111–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Palmer, M.A.; Hondula, K.L.; Koch, B.J. Ecological restoration of streams and rivers: Shifting strategies and shifting goals. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2014, 45, 247–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cosens, B.A.; Williams, M.K. Resilience and water governance: Adaptive governance in the Columbia River basin. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zingraff-Hamed, A.; Greulich, S.; Wantzen, K.M.; Pauleit, S. Societal drivers of European water governance: A comparison of urban river restoration practices in France and Germany. Water 2017, 9, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Adonis, W. Investigating Governance for Urban River Restoration: The Case of the Kuils River, South Africa. Ph.D. Thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  13. Lovat, V. Ecosystem Restoration, Regeneration and Rewilding. Which Are the Differences? Ocean Literacy Portal. 2023. Available online: https://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/ecosystem-restoration-regeneration-rewilding/ (accessed on 14 November 2023).
  14. Carignan, V.; Villard, M.A. Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity: A review. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2002, 78, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bal, P.; Tulloch, A.I.; Addison, P.F.; McDonald-Madden, E.; Rhodes, J.R. Selecting indicator species for biodiversity management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2018, 16, 589–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Szabó, P. Historical ecology: Past, present and future. Biol. Rev. 2015, 90, 997–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Dey, D.C.; Schweitzer, C.J. Restoration for the future: Endpoints, targets, and indicators of progress and success. J. Sustain. For. 2014, 33 (Suppl. S1), 43–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bennett, N.J.; Satterfield, T. Environmental governance: A practical framework to guide design, evaluation, and analysis. Conserv. Lett. 2018, 11, e12600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ha, T.P.; Dieperink, C.; Otter, H.S.; Hoekstra, P. Governance conditions for adaptive freshwater management in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. J. Hydrol. 2018, 557, 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mitchell, M.; Lockwood, M.; Moore, S.A.; Clement, S. Incorporating governance influences into social-ecological system models: A case study involving biodiversity conservation. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 58, 1903–1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. van Oosten, C.; Runhaar, H.; Arts, B. Capable to govern landscape restoration? Exploring landscape governance capabilities, based on literature and stakeholder perceptions. Land Use Policy 2021, 104, 104020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Van Rijswick, M.; Edelenbos, J.; Hellegers, P.; Kok, M.; Kuks, S. Ten building blocks for sustainable water governance: An integrated method to assess the governance of water. Water Int. 2014, 39, 725–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Angelopoulos, N.V.; Cowx, I.G.; Buijse, A.D. Integrated planning framework for successful river restoration projects: Upscaling lessons learnt from European case studies. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 76, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Buitenhuis, Y.; Dieperink, C. Governance conditions for successful ecological restoration of estuaries: Lessons from the Dutch Haringvliet case. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 62, 1990–2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. France, R.L. From land to sea: Governance-management lessons from terrestrial restoration research useful for developing and expanding social-ecological marine restoration. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016, 133, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hegger, D.; Lamers, M.; Van Zeijl-Rozema, A.; Dieperink, C. Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: Success conditions and levers for action. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 18, 52–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Palmer, M.A.; Bernhardt, E.S.; Allan, J.D.; Lake, P.S.; Alexander, G.; Brooks, S.; Carr, J.; Clayton, S.; Dahm, C.N.; Follstad Shah, J.; et al. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005, 42, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zeitoun, M.; Goulden, M.; Tickner, D. Current and future challenges facing transboundary river basin management. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 2013, 4, 331–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dieperink, C. Van open riool tot zalmrivier? Lessen uit de ontwikkeling van het regime inzake de Rijnvervuiling. Beleid Maatsch. 1998, 25, 190–200. [Google Scholar]
  30. Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR). (2023). Home. Available online: https://www.ccr-zkr.org/ (accessed on 18 January 2024).
  31. International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR). History. 2023. Available online: https://www.iksr.org/en/icpr/about-us/history (accessed on 18 November 2023).
  32. International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR). Members. 2024. Available online: https://www.iksr.org/en/icpr/about-us/members (accessed on 15 November 2023).
  33. International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR). Observers. 2024. Available online: https://www.iksr.org/en/icpr/about-us/observers (accessed on 15 November 2023).
  34. Bozkir, E.D.; Leentvaar, J.; Frijters, I.D.; Hofstra, M.A. Impacts of national and international actors on river basin management–Case of River Rhine. In River Basins and Change; Bogardi, J.J., Leentvaar, J., Nachtnebel, H.-P., Eds.; GWSP: Bonn, Germany, 2012; pp. 168–176. [Google Scholar]
  35. Schiff, J.S. The evolution of Rhine river governance: Historical lessons for modern transboundary water management. Water Hist. 2017, 9, 279–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Uehlinger, U.F.; Wantzen, K.M.; Leuven, R.S.; Arndt, H. The Rhine River Basin; Academic Press: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  37. International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR). Rhine & Salmon 2020. 2001. Available online: https://www.iksr.org/en/icpr/rhine-2020/salmon-2020 (accessed on 24 January 2024).
  38. International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR). Upstream–Outcome of the Rhine Action Programme. 2003. Available online: https://www.iksr.org/fileadmin/user_upload/DKDM/Dokumente/Broschueren/EN/bro_En_2003_Upstream_Outcome_of_the_Rhine.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2024).
  39. International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR). Assessment Rhine 2020. 2020. Available online: https://www.iksr.org/fileadmin/user_upload/DKDM/Dokumente/Broschueren/EN/bro_En_Assessment_%E2%80%9CRhine_2020%E2%80%9D.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2024).
  40. International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR). Rhine 2040. 2020. Available online: https://www.iksr.org/fileadmin/user_upload/DKDM/Dokumente/Broschueren/EN/bro_En_2040_long.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2024).
  41. Wieriks, K.; Schulte-Wülwer-Leidig, A. Integrated water management for the Rhine river basin, from pollution prevention to ecosystem improvement. In Natural Resources Forum; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 1997; Volume 21, No. 2; pp. 147–156. [Google Scholar]
  42. Myint, T. Understanding ‘problem of fit’ between institutions and environment: Lessons from the Rhine River Basin. In Proceedings of the LARS2 Conference, The Second International Symposium on the Management of Large Rivers for Fisheries: Sustaining Livelihoods and Biodiversity in the New Millennium, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 11 February 2003; Available online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1555422 (accessed on 15 November 2023).
  43. Mostert, E. International co-operation on Rhine water quality 1945–2008: An example to follow? Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2009, 34, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chase, S.K. There Must Be Something in the Water: An Exploration of the Rhine and Mississippi Rivers’ Governing Differences and an Argument for Change. Wis. Int’l LJ 2011, 29, 609. [Google Scholar]
  45. Da Silveira, A.R.; Richards, K.S. The link between polycentrism and adaptive capacity in river basin governance systems: Insights from the river Rhine and the Zhujiang (Pearl river) basin. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2013, 103, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Shi, W.; Wu, Y.; Sun, X.; Gu, X.; Ji, R.; Li, M. Environmental governance of western Europe and its enlightenment to China: In context to Rhine Basin and the Yangtze River Basin. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2021, 106, 819–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Koed, A.; Birnie-Gauvin, K.; Sivebæk, F.; Aarestrup, K. From endangered to sustainable: Multi-faceted management in rivers and coasts improves Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) populations in Denmark. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 2020, 27, 64–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Aas, Ø.; Klemetsen, A.; Einum, S.; Skurdal, J. (Eds.) Atlantic Salmon Ecology; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  49. Nicola, G.G.; Elvira, B.; Jonsson, B.; Ayllón, D.; Almodóvar, A. Local and global climatic drivers of Atlantic salmon decline in southern Europe. Fish. Res. 2018, 198, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Almodóvar, A.; Ayllón, D.; Nicola, G.G.; Jonsson, B.; Elvira, B. Climate-driven biophysical changes in feeding and breeding environments explain the decline of southernmost European Atlantic salmon populations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2019, 76, 1581–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dadswell, M.; Spares, A.; Reader, J.; McLean, M.; McDermott, T.; Samways, K.; Lilly, J. The decline and impending collapse of the Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) population in the North Atlantic Ocean: A review of possible causes. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2022, 30, 215–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Horreo, J.L.; Machado-Schiaffino, G.; Griffiths, A.M.; Bright, D.; Stevens, J.R.; Garcia-Vazquez, E. Atlantic salmon at risk: Apparent rapid declines in effective population size in southern European populations. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 2011, 140, 605–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mills, K.E.; Pershing, A.J.; Sheehan, T.F.; Mountain, D. Climate and ecosystem linkages explain widespread declines in North American Atlantic salmon populations. Glob. Change Biol. 2013, 19, 3046–3061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Wolter, C. Historic catches, abundance, and decline of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar in the River Elbe. Aquat. Sci. 2015, 77, 367–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Forseth, T.; Barlaup, B.T.; Finstad, B.; Fiske, P.; Gjøsæter, H.; Falkegård, M.; Hindar, A.; Mo, T.A.; Rikardsen, A.H.; Thorstad, E.B.; et al. The major threats to Atlantic salmon in Norway. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2017, 74, 1496–1513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Parrish, D.L.; Behnke, R.J.; Gephard, S.R.; McCormick, S.D.; Reeves, G.H. Why aren’t there more Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1998, 55, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR). Rhine 2020. 2001. Available online: https://www.iksr.org/fileadmin/user_upload/DKDM/Dokumente/Fachberichte/NL/rp_Nl_0116.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2024).
  58. International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR). Convention on the Protection of the Rhine. 1999. Available online: https://www.iksr.org/en/icpr/legal-basis/convention (accessed on 24 January 2024).
  59. Dieperink, C. International water dispute settlement under asymmetry, Lessons from the Rhine Chlorides negotiations (1931–2004). Int. Environ. Agreem. 2011, 11, 139–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Governance conditions for a successful ecosystem restoration as found in journal papers.
Table 1. Governance conditions for a successful ecosystem restoration as found in journal papers.
DimensionGovernance Condition
LegislationEcosystem restoration is protected by and embedded in institutional arrangements and legislation [18,19,20,21,22].
The ecosystem restoration organization has the power to transform existing or to institutionalize new restoration arrangements [18,19,20,21].
The ecosystem restoration organization has the power to enforce the breaching of institutional restoration arrangements legislatively [19,22].
Governance structureEcosystem restoration management takes place at a cross-border, fluvial scale to ensure synergy between individual restoration measures [19,22,23].
Room is given to bottom-up, grassroots participation in the restoration process through designated communication platforms [18,19,22,23,24,25].
There is a clear attribution and division of tasks and responsibilities for all partaking actors in the restoration process [18,19,22,26].
Employees of the ecosystem restoration organization have multi-disciplinary backgrounds, thus accounting for the multi-dimensionality of the restoration challenge [19,21,23].
The ecosystem restoration organization has a concise conflict-resolving strategy aimed at achieving consensus [18,19,21,22,24].
FinancingActors contributing to ecosystem restoration are financially rewarded [20,26].
Ecosystem restoration has economic benefits for partaking actors, in addition to possible direct reward structures (e.g., business development; protection of natural capital) [21,23,25,27].
Clear, viable, and long-term agreements are present to finance ecosystem restoration projects [18,19,21,22,23,24].
InformationThere is a clearly demarcated and designated role for scientists and research in the governance structure of the ecosystem restoration organization [18,19,20,21,22,24,26,27].
Potential ecosystem restoration measures are compared with alternative measures in order to optimize their societal impact [21,22].
The ecosystem restoration process is actively supported by research to reduce and cope with uncertainties in the restoration process [18,19,24].
Stakeholder supportStakeholders, especially politicians, support and actively broker for the ecosystem restoration project [18,20,21].
The ecosystem restoration organization deploys an active capacity-building process to increase the support base of the restoration project by including more actors and stakeholders [20,24,26].
LeadershipStrong, inspiring leadership of individuals with experience and relevant backgrounds is present [21,24].
Collaboration is coordinated and ensures that all partaking actors in the ecosystem restoration process share the same goals and vision [18,19,20,21,24,26,27].
Actors are held accountable for the timely implementation of restoration measures [18,23].
DiscourseThe ecosystem restoration organization enables stakeholder discourses, thus accounting for the inclusion of different values and opinions on ecosystem restoration [18,21,22,25,26].
AdaptationThe ecosystem restoration project has clear long-term goals, which are flexible to anticipate future uncertainties [18,19,20].
The ecosystem restoration organization continually improves its restoration policies and measures by evaluating the outcomes of existing policies and measures [18,19,20,22,23,24,25,27].
InnovationThe ecosystem restoration organization has an organizational culture open for innovation, where experimentation policies and measures are implemented to test new ideas [18,19,20,22,24].
Table 2. List of interviewees with their affiliations.
Table 2. List of interviewees with their affiliations.
IntervieweeAffiliation
Interviewee 1ICPR secretariat
Interviewee 2German Rhine River Basin Community, ICPR Strategic Committee of the ICPR
ICPR Expert and Working groups
Interviewee 3Ministry of Environment of the German Federal State Hessen,
Working Group Water Quality/Emissions of the ICPR
Interviewee 4Netherlands’ Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, Public Works Department,
ICPR Working Group Ecology
Interviewee 5Sport Fishing Netherlands (Sportvisserij Nederland), Wageningen University, ICPR Expert Group Fish (ICPR Observer)
Interviewee 6RIWA Rhine, ICPR Working Group Water Quality/Emissions (ICPR Observer)
Interviewee 7WWF Netherlands (ICPR Observer)
Table 3. The realization of the ICPR goals is to foster the return of the Atlantic salmon to the Rhine by 2020 [39,57].
Table 3. The realization of the ICPR goals is to foster the return of the Atlantic salmon to the Rhine by 2020 [39,57].
Objectives of the Rhine 2020 ProgramRealization 2020
The reactivation of 160 km2 of floodplains along the main stream of the Rhine140 km2
The connection of at least 100 oxbow lakes or lateral water bodies to the dynamics of the RhineMore than 140 oxbow lakes or lateral water bodies
Increasing the structural diversity of 800 km of riverbanks along the RhineMeasures implemented on 196 km of riverbanks
The restoration of the ecological continuity of the Rhine to Basel and in the tributaries from the Migratory Fish Programme for upstream and downstream migrating fish600 fish migration obstacles removed or fish passages constructed to ensure passability. Complete passability of the Rhine from the North Sea to Switzerland has not yet been achieved
Achieving self-sustaining populations of Atlantic salmonThe Atlantic salmon population in the Rhine is not yet self-sustaining and needs to be supported by stocking measures
Making it possible to obtain drinking water using simple, near-natural treatment processes and ensuring that water constituents, neither individually nor in their interaction, have adverse effects on the biocoenoses of plants, animals, and microorganismsNot achieved
Significant reduction in nutrient concentration.Not achieved
Significant reduction in metal concentration.Achieved
Significant reduction in pesticide concentration.Not achieved
Significant reduction in micropollutant concentration.Not achieved
Table 4. The presence of the governance conditions in the Rhine ecosystem restoration process (The color red indicates that the governance condition is absent, orange indicates that the condition is partly present and green that the condition is fully met).
Table 4. The presence of the governance conditions in the Rhine ecosystem restoration process (The color red indicates that the governance condition is absent, orange indicates that the condition is partly present and green that the condition is fully met).
DimensionGovernance ConditionPresence
LegislationEcosystem restoration is protected by and embedded in institutional arrangements and legislation.
The ecosystem restoration organization has the power to transform existing or to institutionalize new restoration arrangements.
The ecosystem restoration organization has the power to enforce the breaching of institutional restoration arrangements legislatively.
Governance structureEcosystem restoration management takes place at a cross-border, fluvial scale to ensure synergy between individual restoration measures.
Room is given to bottom-up, grassroots participation in the restoration process through designated communication platforms.
There is a clear attribution and division of tasks and responsibilities for all partaking actors in the restoration process.
Employees of the ecosystem restoration organization have multi-disciplinary backgrounds, thus accounting for the multi-dimensionality of the restoration challenge.
The ecosystem restoration organization has a concise conflicts resolving strategy aimed at achieving consensus.
FinancingActors contributing to ecosystem restoration are financially rewarded.
Ecosystem restoration has economic benefits for partaking actors, in addition to possible direct reward structures (e.g., business development; protection of natural capital)
Clear, viable, and long-term agreements are present to finance ecosystem restoration projects.
InformationThere is a clearly demarcated and designated role for scientists and research in the governance structure of the ecosystem restoration organization.
Potential ecosystem restoration measures are compared with alternative measures in order to optimize their societal impact.
The ecosystem restoration process is actively supported by research to reduce and cope with uncertainties in the restoration process.
Stakeholder support Stakeholders, especially politicians, support and actively broker the ecosystem restoration project.
The ecosystem restoration organization deploys an active capacity-building process to increase the support base of the restoration project by including more actors and stakeholders.
LeadershipStrong, inspiring leadership of individuals with experience and a relevant background is present.
Collaboration is coordinated and ensures that all participating actors in the ecosystem restoration process share the same goals and vision.
Actors are held accountable for the timely implementation of restoration measures.
DiscourseThe ecosystem restoration organization enables stakeholder discourses, thus accounting for the inclusion of different values and opinions on ecosystem restoration.
AdaptationThe ecosystem restoration project has clear long-term goals, which are flexible to anticipate future uncertainties.
The ecosystem restoration organization continually improves its restoration policies and measures by evaluating the outcomes of existing policies and measures.
Innovation The ecosystem restoration organization has an organizational culture open for innovation, where experimentation policies and measures are implemented to test new ideas.
Table 5. Revised framework of governance conditions for a successful restoration of riverine ecosystems.
Table 5. Revised framework of governance conditions for a successful restoration of riverine ecosystems.
DimensionGovernance Condition
LegislationEcosystem restoration is protected and mandated by basin-specific treaties and European legislation, which empower basin organizations to transform or establish new institutional arrangements and enforce compliance.
Governance structureThe basin organization operates on a cross-border, fluvial scale to ensure synergy between measures; it incorporates bottom-up grassroots participation via communication platforms, clearly defines the tasks and responsibilities of all actors, and has a concise strategy for conflict resolution.
FinancingEcosystem restoration is supported by clear, viable, and long-term financing agreements, rewarding the contributions of involved actors.
InformationScientists with multidisciplinary backgrounds have a clearly demarcated and designated role in the creation, implementation, and progress monitoring of restoration policies and measures; a centralized progress monitoring system has been set up.
Stakeholder supportThe ecosystem restoration project is supported by key stakeholders and facilitated through active political brokering, while the basin organization enhances its support base by deploying an active capacity-building process to include more actors and stakeholders.
LeadershipThe ecosystem restoration project benefits from strong, inspiring leadership by experienced individuals who coordinate collaboration among actors and hold them accountable for the timely implementation of measures.
DiscourseThe ecosystem restoration organization enables stakeholder discourses, thus accounting for the inclusion of different values and opinions on ecosystem restoration.
AdaptationThe ecosystem restoration project has clear long-term strategic goals that allow the basin organization to deal with uncertainties and to adapt and improve its policies.
InnovationThe ecosystem restoration organization has an innovative organizational culture that is open to setting up experimentation policies and measures to test new ideas.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fenten, T.; Dieperink, C. Governance Conditions for a Successful Restoration of Riverine Ecosystems, Lessons from the Rhine River Basin. Water 2024, 16, 2983. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16202983

AMA Style

Fenten T, Dieperink C. Governance Conditions for a Successful Restoration of Riverine Ecosystems, Lessons from the Rhine River Basin. Water. 2024; 16(20):2983. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16202983

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fenten, Twan, and Carel Dieperink. 2024. "Governance Conditions for a Successful Restoration of Riverine Ecosystems, Lessons from the Rhine River Basin" Water 16, no. 20: 2983. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16202983

APA Style

Fenten, T., & Dieperink, C. (2024). Governance Conditions for a Successful Restoration of Riverine Ecosystems, Lessons from the Rhine River Basin. Water, 16(20), 2983. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16202983

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop